The Relevance of Philosophy

[Mr Sleep]

The title says it all really, i am not exactly a scholar of philosohpy so this debate is so i can understand the medium better.

It has always been a problem of mine understanding the relevance of many of the more celebrated Philosophers, everyone knows a few quotes from Neitchze, but does one fully understand the ramifications of his work if they just read the odd quote from a third hand source. To understand anyone i think that one should understand where they come from, what their experiences have been, their general temprament etc. Can one understand a man from a few select (often amusing) quotes?

We are all in some ways philosophers even the drunk in the nameless bar can wax lyrical on their experiences in life; what life has taught them. Who are we to say that his comments and experiences are any less relevant to that of a Soctrates.

What are your opinions and experiences of Philosophy?

[Rob-hin]

I think you shoundn't accept their writings as "the answer" or '"the truth".

As you say about their context. Lissen to them and make your own answer with your own context and experiences.

But don't think of the as if they are so wise. I've seen good one liners like "to be or not to be that is the question" etc... on toilets.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

We are all in some ways philosophers even the drunk in the nameless bar can wax lyrical on their experiences in life; what life has taught them. Who are we to say that his comments and experiences are any less relevant to that of a Soctrates.

Certainly we all at times discuss philosophical issues and the discussions we sometimes have in bars about life and so on can be very good and valuable philosophy ( usually best between 2 and 6 pints). The philosophy that goes on in universities is simply an attempt to do this in a more organised way.
But philosophy has developed, like the siences and mathematics, to such an extend that it is very difficult to understand whats going on without knowing the jargon and having a lot of background knowledge. This make it a real challenge for somebody trying to break into the subject for the first time.

Socrates was of course one of the first that started to do philosophy in an organised way - and like anyone that takes the first steps he is honored for that. There is undoubtedly value in what socretes said but that does not mean that he is very relevant for 21. century philosophy. Like the pioners in other subjects are highly regarded but not thought to be relevant by todays standarts so it is in philosophy. Similarly what you said in a bar one evening might be as relevant as what Socrates said but he has the advantage of saying it 2500 years before you.

To be sure short qoutes are not a very good way of assessing a philosopher although they can at times be starteling and powerful. it is abit like thinking that e=mc2 explaines all of einstein's theory well. While a qoute might powerfully express a position that is not philosophy - it is the arguements that support the position that is the philosophy.

[Aegis]

I? Why?

'Nuff said.

[HighLordDave]

I went to see the doctor of philosophy,
With a poster of Rasputin and a beard down to his knee,
He never did marry, or see a B-grade movie,
He graded my performance, he said he could see through me,
I spent four years prostrate to the higher mind,
Got my paper and I was free.
--Closer to Fine, Indigo Girls, 1988

(You should also check out Bruce's Philosopher's Song by Eric Idle)

I have always thought of "professional" philosophers as people with too much free time who are too lazy to get real jobs. Most modern philosophers are ivory-tower academics who write about their small, insular world.

That is not to say that the discipline of philosophy is without merit, because they often have something valuable to say. However, as our friend Mr Sleep says, a philosopher (and their writings) cannot truly be studied without knowing about his or her background, and that all of their viewpoints must come with the caveat that while their beliefs may be true for them, at the point in time they were writing, those same beliefs may or may not be appropriate to someone of a different socio-economic background, ethnic heritage, or other situations.

I think that a lot of philosophers have their entire body of work mistakenly summarsied in a few words (ie-Renee Decartes's career boils down to "I think, therefore I am"). While this may do them a disservice, it is not so different from how we treat people in other disciplines and their legacies.

The difference between a professional philosopher and the drunk down at the bar, is that the professional gets published and lots of people are exposed to his viewpoint, while Bubba can only rattle on and on for hours to the poor sod who's stuck on the stool next to him.

I was at a bachelor party for my old boss at Little Caesar's, and I was slowly getting hammered with a buddy of mine (he was already drunk when I got there) while watching a porn video on the big-screen. Tommy was going on and on about how this porno was emblamatic of how the United States was treating the world.

"See that guy? [hic]", Tommy started. "The one with 'Pete' embroidered on his shirt . . . He's [burp] the US. The girl, bent over the couch . . . [slurp] she's South America . . . And he's giving it to her like we did to the Contras . . ."

Tommy went on for several minutes. But who's to say that Tommy was wrong? Not I. But will Tommy's treatise on how many parallels there are between the United States government and Ron Jeremy ever see the light of day? We can only hope not.

My favourite philosophers are the unintentional ones. Guys like my friend Tommy who aren't trying to be profound, but who just talk about their daily lives. Yogi ("It's like deja vu all over again") Berra is probably the most famous, but these guys are all over the world (and they're usually more often right than their academic counterparts).

[Nightmare]

Philosophy is incredably interesting for me. Such as trying to deceifer:

I think, therefor I am.

I don't know, I just like to think, and philosophy is for the thinkers.

[Morlock]

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
Philosophy is incredably interesting for me. Such as trying to deceifer:

I think, therefor I am.

I don't know, I just like to think, and philosophy is for the thinkers.

I like to think, but I don't like the sayings (such as yours) that make me think "I am so stupid! I'm never gonna get this"

[prateek]

Machavillien (sp?)= Buisness man's/Tyrant's god.

[Tom]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I
I have always thought of "professional" philosophers as people with too much free time who are too lazy to get real jobs. Most modern philosophers are ivory-tower academics who write about their small, insular world.

I happen to know a number of professionel philosohers and without exeption they are down to earth people that work very hard.
I doubt that you really know any or that you know alot about their work.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
IThat is not to say that the discipline of philosophy is without merit, because they often have something valuable to say. However, as our friend Mr Sleep says, a philosopher (and their writings) cannot truly be studied without knowing about his or her background, and that all of their viewpoints must come with the caveat that while their beliefs may be true for them, at the point in time they were writing, those same beliefs may or may not be appropriate to someone of a different socio-economic background, ethnic heritage, or other situations.

This kind of view is called reletavism. Almost all people that have bothered to look into the subject think that relativism can't be true.
philosophy deals with necessary truths like mathematics - trying to apply relativism to these subjects is even more bizzare than applying it to a limited field like morallity for example.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I"See that guy? [hic]", Tommy started. "The one with 'Pete' embroidered on his shirt . . . He's [burp] the US. The girl, bent over the couch . . . [slurp] she's South America . . . And he's giving it to her like we did to the Contras . . ."

Hmm this sounds more like a political analogy and not philosophy at all. It seems to me you dont know alot about philosophy so maybe you should critisis things you know something about.

[HighLordDave]

A little testy this morning, Tom?

Philosophy is relative (just as history is) because it is largely an academic discipline. However even science and other "objective" disciplines are relative. That is, as a discipline, the basic Truths (those with capital "T"s) can change depending on the latest models. Is physics a discipline with an absolute right and wrong? Yes, for now. But remember when the most prominent physicists believed that the universe was geocentric and that everything revolved around our planet? Then the paradigm changed and the old models were thrown out the window. The new models will hold up until something new comes along and supplants them as well.

The same thing applies to philosophy. How else can philosophers make a living debating the merits of each others arguments if there were a single absolute Truth? If there is a Truth to fields like morality or aesthetics, why do the standards change depending on things like culture, geographic location, and time? Philosophers, just as people in other disciplines, write from their subjective views on supposedly objective things. They have prejudices and biases just like other people and their views are relative to their situations.

Also, philosophy often has political connotations even if its debate is not in a political context. Take for instance the debate about free will, which I believe was originally a religious issue. What implications does free will have in a time of monarchies who rule through the "divine right of kings"? Similarly, a debate supposedly in the arena of political science has implications in terms of basic philosophy. For instance, if we're talking about welfare, it raises the question "What is the fundamental purpose of government?" Is it the activist government of the New Deal and Great Society, or should government have a more limited role and only concern itself with collective security?

[fugitive]

even though i dont get half of it, i like philosophy since you are trying to get answers to questions that dont really have answers... you try to answer a question, but whos gonna say its right? there are answers that are (of course) more reasonable than others, but still you dont have the ability to answer each question. thats what i like about it, the mysteriousness and the 'fog' that surrounds it. a most interesting subject it is...

[Morlock]

Originally posted by fugitive
even though i dont get half of it, i like philosophy since you are trying to get answers to questions that dont really have answers... you try to answer a question, but whos gonna say its right? there are answers that are (of course) more reasonable than others, but still you dont have the ability to answer each question. thats what i like about it, the mysteriousness and the 'fog' that surrounds it. a most interesting subject it is...

I have tried for hours to prove philosaphy wrong by answering "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" (the point being does sound exist if no one is around to hear it) but I failed time and time again- I cept on contradicting myself.

[VoodooDali]

I'm Pink
Therefore
I'm Spam

[Yshania]

Originally posted by Morlock


I have tried for hours to prove philosaphy wrong by answering "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" (the point being does sound exist if no one is around to hear it) but I failed time and time again- I cept on contradicting myself.

To be, is to be perceived!

[Yshania]

Originally posted by VoodooDali

I'm Pink
Therefore
I'm Spam

Nah!! that is Aegis!

[KidD01]

Originally posted by VoodooDali
I'm Pink
Therefore
I'm Spam

A canned SPAM that is !

[VoodooDali]

And Now For Something Completely Different...

Philosopher's Drinking Song
by Monty Python

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy old beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken old fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by morigan
I don't realy agree with this. No modern Physicist will say that there are absolute Truths. All that they will say is that under this set of conditions, this effect seems to occur constantly.

But if something occurs under the same controlled circumstances often enough, it becomes a theory. If everyone agrees that there is no evidence to believe the it won't happen all the time, that event becomes a law (ie-Law of Gravitic Attraction, Law of Thermal Gas Expansion, Laws of Motion, etc.). In that sense, there are universal Truths. However, as I've said before, those Truths only hold water until someone disproves them or the paradigm changes (again).

Truths about philosophy are often harder to prove or disprove because they don't to experiments with empirical evidence or results. Their work is usually through "thought experiments" or by other intangible methods.

[Tom]

Re: A little testy this morning, Tom?

Originally posted by HighLordDave

A little testy this morning, Tom?

hmmm ok maybe I was alittle grumpy yesterday. Let me try and deal with your points.

Originally posted by HighLordDave

Philosophy is relative (just as history is) because it is largely an academic discipline.

this is a bit strange. Subjects don't become relative because they are academic.

Originally posted by HighLordDave

However even science and other "objective" disciplines are relative. That is, as a discipline, the basic Truths (those with capital "T"s) can change depending on the latest models. Is physics a discipline with an absolute right and wrong? Yes, for now.

Here you seem to imply that the theory of relativity is true today but might be false tomorrow. This on first look seems to be wrong. we should ask what makes the theory true or false.
The theory describes a feature of the universe - if the feature is there we must say it is true, if the feature is not like the theory states we must say it is false. On your account the truth of the theory seems to depend on the current beliefs of physicists.

Originally posted by HighLordDave

But remember when the most prominent physicists believed that the universe was geocentric and that everything revolved around our planet? Then the paradigm changed and the old models were thrown out the window. The new models will hold up until something new comes along and supplants them as well.

Surely we can say that now we have a theory that we think is true because we saw that old theory was made false by certain experiments. We found that Newton’s theory couldn’t be correct or couldn’t be the whole story because when we used it to make calculations of planetary movements that movements didn't fit with the calculations. Up comes Einstein - he says I have a theory that fit the orbits of planets. Further more he says that if we do this experiment then we will get this result - whatdoyouknow the experiment gives just the results that Einstein says. That doesn't prove that Einstein is right - proves belong to math and philosophy - but it gives us reason to believe that Einstein describes things as they are out there in the universe.

Originally posted by HighLordDave

The same thing applies to philosophy. How else can philosophers make a living debating the merits of each others arguments if there were a single absolute Truth? If there is a Truth to fields like morality or aesthetics, why do the standards change depending on things like culture, geographic location, and time? Philosophers, just as people in other disciplines, write from their subjective views on supposedly objective things. They have prejudices and biases just like other people and their views are relative to their situations.

It is certainly true that philosophers can be biased and disagree about whether a given theory is true or not. that does not mean that it is relative whether the theory in question is true or false.
Let say that we are looking at a car and disagree about whether it is a WV 1970 mini van or a Rolls Royce Silver phantom. Now I'm biased because my favourite vehicle is the WV mini van. Does that affect in anyway what kind of car it is?

Originally posted by HighLordDave

Also, philosophy often has political connotations even if its debate is not in a political context. Take for instance the debate about free will, which I believe was originally a religious issue. What implications does free will have in a time of monarchies who rule through the "divine right of kings"? Similarly, a debate supposedly in the arena of political science has implications in terms of basic philosophy. For instance, if we're talking about welfare, it raises the question "What is the fundamental purpose of government?" Is it the activist government of the New Deal and Great Society, or should government have a more limited role and only concern itself with collective security?

This answer might be too simple but lets say that the government should do what is best for the people. I don't think actually that there is much disagreement about this - what politicians disagree about is the way to achieve this best state of affairs.
I don't understand what you point is concerning free will.

Originally posted by HighLordDave

But if something occurs under the same controlled circumstances often enough, it becomes a theory. If everyone agrees that there is no evidence to believe the it won't happen all the time, that event becomes a law (ie-Law of Gravitic Attraction, Law of Thermal Gas Expansion, Laws of Motion, etc.). In that sense, there are universal Truths. However, as I've said before, those Truths only hold water until someone disproves them or the paradigm changes (again).

Again just because scientist disagree about whether a law hold doesn't mean that the existence of the law depend on the physicists.

Originally posted by HighLordDave

Truths about philosophy are often harder to prove or disprove because they don't to experiments with empirical evidence or results. Their work is usually through "thought experiments" or by other intangible methods.

You cant prove (if you take the notion of proof in its strictest sense) that a physical theory is true. You can gather so much evidence that very few people will doubt that it is true. You can however prove that a theory is false if a single observation shows this.
Positive Proofs belongs to math and philosophy. Lets say that I think that Goldbach’s conjecture (any even integer greater than 3 is the sum of two prime numbers, 5+11=16 for example) is false. You could then make a mathematical proof shoving that Goldbach’s conjecture always holds.
Similarly in philosophy I could believe that it is not possible that it is not possible to have a private language but you could prove that it is possible.

(Both Goldbach’s conjecture and the privat language argument are unresolved issues)